the supervisors from awarding the contract to any other person or firm.

The case was carried to the Supreme Court, where it was decided in favor of the defendants. It was held that the Board of Supervisors are a quasi-judicial body whose duties are prescribed by statute. If they should let the contract in violation of the charter, such contract would be void. But the board had not yet acted when this suit was brought; and the court declared that it cannot be presumed that a public officer elected by the people and sworn to perform his duty faithfully and to the best of his ability, is going to disregard his oath and willfully violate the law.21

Soon after this first suit was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, the Board of Supervisors took action in the matter of awarding the contracts. The supervisors exercised their right to reject all bids on the ground that public policy demanded that such action be taken. They then awarded the printing to union firms submitting proposals at the figures offered in their bids, claiming that there was not time to readvertise as the printed matter was required for immediate use.

The Stanley-Taylor Company then applied to the Superior Court for a writ of mandate to stop this action. Judge Murasky refused to grant this writ, whereupon the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the lower court, quoting with approval a large part of Judge Murasky's opinion. The courts held that, "Where the law intended a subordinate body to be the final arbiter of any question, vesting such body with discretion to determine the matter, and making its judgment absolute, the writ of mandate will not lie to divest or mold or otherwise interfere with such discretion." It was declared that, since the supervisors had jurisdiction to decide the matter, their judgment was not subject to the control of the courts. "Were the Court to interfere, it might substitute its belief and its judgment for the belief and judgment of the Board, a result that our system does not contemplate. The

21 Barto v. Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, 135 Cal.

writ of mandate will lie to correct illegal but not capricious.

The trade-unions regarded these decisions as a great victory for the union label, which has continued to adorn all the public printing of the city.

DECISIONS RECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF THE LABEL LAW.

The third label case which the printers carried to a successful issue, if not so materially beneficial, was no less gratifying to the trade-unionists. The Citizens' Alliance, an organization of the opponents of the trade-unions, was the primary instigator of many of the labor cases brought before the courts during this period. Among other trade-union practices, the extensive use of the printers' label was attacked. On May 11, 1904, the following circular was issued by Herbert George, the executive officer of the Alliance:

"TO OUR MEMBERS:

The obnoxious and offensive display of union labels is to all liberty-loving and law-abiding Americans, and they resent the insolence. The zeal displayed by the typographical union in placing their label on all printed matter has led us to adopt a similar label (notice stamp in upper left-hand corner of this circular). It is not our plan to advocate its use. We simply offer it to enable our members to demand its use when the other label is forced upon them.

"The City and County printing is decorated with the union label. As citizens and taxpayers let us demand the use of our label in conjunetion with the other label, if labels must be used. Possibly both sides will then agree to leave off their labels entirely, and let the public printing appear like the printing of other American states that do not advertise their slavery to the union by the use of labels of any kind.

"In this connection we wish to enlist your assistance to get rid of union signs in barber shops, bootblack stands and other business places. Their display is an evidence of tyranny on the part of the unions. Ask your bootblack if he shines shoes of only union men, ask your barber if he caters only to union trade. While these signs are offensively displayed, it gives courage to those who believe in the tyrannical methods of the walking delegate. In other states we have completely eradicated them by following the course above suggested. Might I ask you to assist?

"Another thing we wish to call to your attention; an institution calling itself the Union Directory Company is seeking to list firms employing union men' and those who are "friendly to unions.' I consider it only another scheme to impose on our members and to make my task harder to perform.

"It is safe to turn down all propositions of this sort and we urge upon all members to decline donations to labor picnics, and things of that sort, for the present.

(Signed by President Herbert George.) 23

22 Stanley Taylor Co. v. Supervisors of the City and County of San Fran cisco, 135 Cal. 488.

23 The circular was published as a part of facts in the case.

The Typographical Union promptly brought suit for an injunction, restraining the Citizens' Alliance from making use of their imitation label. In his decision, Judge Sloss held that the section of the Political Code24 providing for the protection of trade-union labels was constitutional, and that the use of the label proposed in the circular was an infringement on the rights of the Typographical Union. He granted an injunction restraining the Citizens' Alliance from causing their counterfeit label to be imprinted on any book, circular, card, newspaper, or other printed matter, and from disposing of any printed matter bearing such an imitation of the printers' label. 25

The cigarmakers have also won several suits brought in defense of their label. In 1893 they secured an injunction restraining Mattheas and Company from the further use of an imitation of the label of the Cigarmakers' Union. Ten years later this firm was caught selling about five hundred cigars made by non-union labor, and put up in boxes to which were affixed a false and fraudulent imitation of the cigarmakers' label. The union at once instituted contempt proceedings for the violation of the injunction order of 1893. The defendant firm was found guilty and fined $150.26

The California trade-unionists are gradually coming to realize that in the union label they have found their most effective means of securing the closed shop. The San Francisco Labor Council has a standing committee which devotes itself to devising means for promoting the demand for the labels of the organizations which it represents. The number of unions adopting this means of identifying the work of their members have multiplied until it is difficult, even for a person familiar with the labor movement, to recognize all the labels now in use. The Labor Council has followed the example of the American Federation of Labor in issuing a label calendar which displays in colors the large array of union labels which it behooves all loyal members to demand when purchasing goods.

24 Political Code, 3200.

25 French (Typographical Union) v. Citizens' Alliance; Case No. 90847, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.

26 Burns et al. (Cigarmakers' Union) v. Mattheas & Co.; Case No. 39578, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.

not only published the law throughout the state, but also made extensive personal investigations, and last, but by no means least important, he caused the arrest and prosecution of obstinate offenders.37

While there have been a few such instances of commendable zeal, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has not, on the whole, been an effective branch of the state government. It is obvious that the first step towards increasing its efficiency must be the enforcement of some sort of civil service regulations. So long as the office is simply a means of paying political debts, the securing of a competent Commissioner will be but a happy accident.

If we are ever to have any continuous policy in the Bureau, or a careful study of the development of the labor interests of the state, it is absolutely necessary to have a more stable tenure of office. The fine work which has been done by the Massachusetts and United States Bureaus of Labor was largely due to the experienced services of Carroll D. Wright. The knowledge that the Commissioner's term of office will soon expire and that his work may then be overthrown by a successor of differing views, must often prove discouraging to his efforts for thorough work or permanent results.

It is evident to all that the force of assistants allowed the Labor Commissioner is absurdly inadequate to perform the work of the office. If California is to do its duty in enforcing the laws for the protection of the health and safety of the rapidly increasing army of workers in the industries of the state, a well-organized system of factory inspection is absolutely necessary. Six or eight inspectors could be kept busy by an efficient Labor Commissioner. In Eastern states it has been found that women inspectors often do more effective work for the enforcement of the laws protecting women and children. When we make the necessary increase in the number of factory inspectors, we should profit by their experience, and enlist energetic women inspectors, who can devote themselves to promoting the welfareof the many women and children now found among the wageworkers of the state.

37 This has already been more fully discussed in the chapter on childlabor.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE STATE BOARD OF ARBITRATION.

The statute establishing the State Board of Arbitration, unlike the other California labor laws, was not passed at the solicitation of the labor organizations. They have refused to endorse, or actively opposed all legislation of this kind. The law was passed by the efforts of the State Labor Commissioners, and is one of the few measures for which they failed to secure the active co-operation of the trade-unions. It undertook to create a new institution rather than to embody or regulate what already existed as the natural outgrowth of actual experiences, and, as is often the case with such theoretical legislation, it has failed to meet the actual social need for which it was designed.

J. S. Enos, the first California Labor Commissioner, pointed out in his Second Biennial Report that the arbitration laws of the state were general in their application, and not adapted to the settlement of labor disputes. He published a copy of the New York law creating a State Board of Arbitration, and recommended the passage of a similar law in California.1 A bill providing for the appointment of such a board was drafted by his successor, J. J. Tobin. It was to consist of three members, one chosen from the ranks of labor, a representative of the employers, and the Labor Commissioner. This bill was presented for endorsement to the Federated Trades Council and the Labor Convention then in session in San Francisco. A full discussion brought forth many objections, among the most serious of which were the following:2

(1) The political obligations incurred by the Governor would prevent him appointing arbitrators entirely unbiased with regard to labor disputes.3

1 Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 14 (Appendix to Journals of Senate and Assembly, 27th Sess., Vol. 7, Doc. 3).

2 Coast Seamen's Journal, December 5, 12, 19, 1888.

3 Ibid., December 19, 1888.